On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:13:56 +0200
Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/13/2014 06:30 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On
On 08/13/2014 06:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Yes, it currently limits you to half of memory, but at least we would
>> like to make it tuneable since there are a lot of user cases where the
>> user wants to use 90% of memory for GPU tasks at the expense of
>> everything else.
>
> Ime a
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:30:45PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >> On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hel
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:09:49PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
>
>
> On 13/08/14 16:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >>On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom w
On 08/13/2014 04:09 PM, Oded Gabbay wrote:
>
>
> On 13/08/14 16:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 0
On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> From: J?r?me
On 13/08/14 16:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> From: J?r?me Gl
On 13.08.2014 12:52, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> From: J?r?me Glisse
>
> When experiencing memory pressure we want to minimize pool size so that
> memory we just shrinked is not added back again just as the next thing.
>
> This will divide by 2 the maximum pool size for each device each time
> the po
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >> On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> >>> From: J?r?me Glisse
> >>>
> >>> When experiencing memory pr
On 08/13/2014 02:40 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> From: J?r
Hi
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
From: J?r?me Glisse
When experiencing memory pressure w
On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
>>> From: J?r?me Glisse
>>>
>>> When experiencing memory pressure we want to minimize pool size so that
>>> memory we just shrinked is no
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>
> On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> > From: J?r?me Glisse
> >
> > When experiencing memory pressure we want to minimize pool size so that
> > memory we just shrinked is not added back again just as the next thing.
>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:13:56PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 03:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:35:52PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> >> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >>
On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, J?r?me Glisse wrote:
> From: J?r?me Glisse
>
> When experiencing memory pressure we want to minimize pool size so that
> memory we just shrinked is not added back again just as the next thing.
>
> This will divide by 2 the maximum pool size for each device each time
> the
From: J?r?me Glisse
When experiencing memory pressure we want to minimize pool size so that
memory we just shrinked is not added back again just as the next thing.
This will divide by 2 the maximum pool size for each device each time
the pool have to shrink. The limit is bumped again is next all
19 matches
Mail list logo